This study aims to better understand how is characterized the risk factors on the performance of infrastructure projects. As specific objectives, seeks to determine the presence of risk factors and the performance of projects; assess the relationship between the presence of risk factors and the performance impact; and identify how the risk factors management can influence the management of projects. According to these authors, there are different types of infrastructure projects, divided into two categories: a economic: bridges, drainage systems, industrial plants, telecommunications, rail transport, etc.
According to Sanderson , the economic category has as predominant characteristics, involves a substantial portion of resources; presents a life expectancy measured in decades and the clients are public organizations. The main suppliers are private companies which frequently reserve the property of a portion of the infrastructure, that stipulate the collection by services rendered, at the end of the project. In the study conducted by Flyvbjerg et al. Meng found, as a result of his research that In the field of studies on the discipline of project management, surveys point to a variety of performance dimensions that go beyond the traditional iron triangle PMI, For infrastructure projects, the bigger the amplitude and intensity on performance evaluation, the greater the chances of success Flyvbjerg, However, one should consider that these ventures are also sources of risks, because they involve many stakeholders Antoniou et al.
According to Wang et al. From this finding emerges the first proposition: PR01 - risk assessment by management of risk factors improves the performance of infrastructure projects. Additionally, Raz et al. In this respect, this management already would reduce the impact on the different goals of the projects El-Sayegh, ; Shengli et al, ; Love et al. As a result of the research, as well as show the main techniques, the authors also suggested that the management of risks is also linked to an alternative process, since of the ten best practices evaluated five are part of the background, as shown in the Table 1.
Yet, according to the authors, there are two possible explanations for this finding: 1 the risk control techniques are ineffective and therefore were perceived as inadequate; 2 much time and effort are invested in the previous processes of risk management, which are carried out with other activities of project planning. This statement lead to the following proposition: PR02 - the intense use of skills of the risk managers in the risk factors management improves the performance of infrastructure projects. Similarly, Thamhain adds that if the team is effective, the influence of risk factors can be mitigated.
As infrastructure projects are associated with various risks Shen et al. This evidences lead to the proposition: PR03 — the effort in the prior standardization of the degree of complexity of the risk factors management improves the performance of infrastructure projects.
Discover the degree of complexity of the projects is part of a management model, whose purpose is to obtain the best results Pich et al. The methodological path followed in this research passed through the following phases: a elaboration of research topic and the objectives, from the process of identification of gap in the literature; b definition of the theoretical framework to frame the study; c preparation of study propositions PRO-1, PRO-2 and PRO-3 creating the theoretical model; d identification and selection of analysis units; e development and validation of the instrument of collection at brainstorm meeting and pre-test with experts in infrastructure projects; f data collection of the five cases studied; g analysis and discussion of the results based on the specialized literature; h completion of the work, also composed by practical contributions, limitations and suggestions for future studies.
As show in the introductory section, this article aims to answer the following question: how is characterized the risk factors management on the performance of infrastructure projects? Consequently, the main objective is to better understand how is characterized the risk factors in the performance of infrastructure projects. To this end, three specific objectives were pursued: a determine the presence of risk factors and the performance of projects; b assess the relationship between the presence of risk factors and the performance impact; c identify how the risk factors management can influence the management of projects.
From a wide review of the theoretical framework involving the characterization of infrastructure projects, the multiple dimensions of performance of projects and the management of risk factors, three propositions could be drawn up: PRO-1, PRO-2 and PRO-3, according to Figure 1 , result in a theoretical model on the problem of the research. PRO-2 is based on the need of preparing managers for which decisions are reflected in a better performance of projects.
It is also state that risk management is more intense in projects with higher levels of complexity Barki et al. In this research, the analysis units chosen were economic infrastructure projects whose risk management processes, and subsequent performances, are far from the desired McKim et al.
- Table of Contents.
- Step 1) Identify Risk;
- essay on crime and punishment.
- bread by margaret atwood essays;
- Characterization of risk factor management in infrastructure projects;
In this way, five cases have been selected and evaluated by the technique of synthesis of cross cases Yin, For survey the profile of the cases surveyed were considered, the total budget of the project, the number of people involved, the duration, the economic segment of client companies, location State of the project and the complexity, as shown in Table 2.
The case 1 aimed to expand and modernize the lubricant factory of a large-scale national company, active in the energy segment.
The case 2 aims the deployment of a unit of coke for a large-scale national company. The case 4 had as objective the reform of a test lab for an international company of the automotive segment. The case 5 sought the expansion of a railway line and the improvement of urban mobility in one major cities of Brazil. As shown in Table 3 , the profile of respondents was also surveyed. The respondents have a good level of education two graduates, two specialists and a master , are experienced average 26 years and mature average of 50 years.
Civil Engineering Graduation was present in four of the respondents. Two of them cases 2 and 5 have an international certification in project management.
The instrument used for data collection was developed and validated in a brainstorm meeting with an executive certificate in project management and extensive experience in a national transport company, in October Then, the pre-test was attended by three experts in infrastructure projects. In the selection of experts, sought the balance between qualification and professional experience.
For this, one possessed academic profile; the other academic, but based on the market; and the last market oriented. Data were collected between November and December , with four interviews conducted at distance using a questionnaire validated in the previous phase, and one conducted face-to-face, what made possible the direct observation of the researchers.
The highest possible presence is Another index used in this study refers to the performance index, which reflects the performance of the projects from the opinion of the respective project managers. The weights, by Likert scale of 5 points, ranging from 1 totally disagree to 5 completely agree , with the highest possible performance being To assess the relationship and the degree of impact of risk factors on the dimensions of performance of infrastructure projects were considered three levels of classification: low, medium, and high.
Specifically regarding to the presence of risk factors in projects the following criteria were adopted: a low: index of presence less than or equal to The analysis of the presence of risk factors in projects is an important step to prevent damage in the performance. It is assumed that all projects have risks associated. Thus, the risk factor with the highest index of presence in cases surveyed was the procrastination The superiority of the procrastination factor is explained by the risks: a delays in construction: schedule control errors cases 1, 2 and 5 , inadequate resource estimates cases 1, 2, 4 and 5 , little comprehensive activities definition cases 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 , unrealistic duration estimates cases 1 and 5 , among others; b third parties delay: improper sizing of teams cases 1, 2 and 3 , sequencing of activities cases 2 and 5 and interference on the suppliers cases 4 and 5 , etc.
At the other extreme is the financial and economic factor, which is explained mainly by the risk of financial mismanagement of the contractor, which had the smallest presence, since most projects use public resources for its implementation. Two risks not expected in the literature consulted, were raised in the interviews, and allocated by the researchers to the political and operational risks factors, respectively. They are: a Corruption: bribery in exchange for cooperation or support cases 2 and 5 ; b : integration between members of the different teams involved in projects case 4.
When evaluating the performance, dimensions was found that four respondents disagree that projects cases 1, 2, 4 and 5 are on time and on budget. Most respondents cases 1, 4 and 5 also disagreed that the projects have minor changes, few reviews of engineering tasks and planning contains detailed frameworks and integration between budget and schedule.
In cases 1, 2, 3 and 4 the replanning were monthly, reflecting significant changes in scope. Integration management cases 2, 4 and 5 was also considered a bottleneck, because during the execution of the projects, several were the difficulties with acquisition and delivery times by suppliers. Among the respondents, three nor agreed, nor disagreed about the risks being managed on the projects cases 1, 4 and 5.
The neutrality of the opinions about this dimension was evaluated with the professionals and is justified by the poor knowledge on the processes that involve the project risk management identification, assessment, response, and control. Finally, three respondents agreed that their infrastructure projects cases 1, 3 and 4 have all the activities being managed in terms of progress and with the total quality, properly managed.
In these terms, although The classification of projects by performance index was thus defined: case 3 The presence of procrastination, suppliers, political, planning, contractual and legal, and operational factors proved to be more associated with projects that have high impact on time cases 1 and 5. The projects with safety and social factors, and not controllable forces are more linked to the lesser-term impact case 3. The cases with the presence of contractual and legal factors, operational and financial and economic approached most of the projects with the lowest degree of impact on costs case 3.
The projects with presence of procrastination, planning and supplier factors are more associated with the high-impact on changes cases 1 and 4. The presence of factors safety and social, operational, and not controllable forces are more linked to projects with less impact on the changes case 2. On can verifies that the projects with the presence of operational and suppliers factors relate to high impact on the dimension activities cases 2 and 5.
As for the procrastination factors, not controllable forces, safety and social, planning and financial and economic, it was found that their presence is more associated with the cases with medium impact on activities cases 3 and 4.
LLW Repository adopts Predict! to embed risk management
It was also found that the presence of factors planning, procrastination, contractual and legal, and operational is linked with projects with high impact on integration cases 1 and 2. Already the cases with the presence of safety and social factors differ from others by showing greater connection with low impact on integration case 3. In addition, the projects with the presence of safety and social factors and not controllable forces are distinguished from others by the lower impact on risk management case 3. It is possible to note that the projects with the presence of the financial and economic, and operational factors were more related to high impact on the quality case 2.
Already the presence of planning, suppliers, procrastination, contractual and legal factors are more associated with the cases with medium impact cases 1, 4 and 5.
Risk Management in a Manufacturing Company
The summary of existing associations between the ten risk factors and the seven dimensions of performance assessed in this study are showed in Table 4. Source: elaborated by the authors. Once the infrastructure projects are exposed to different risks, we sought to assess which techniques were used in their management. The results of this survey are showed in Table 5. From Table 5 , note that the techniques applied in the cases studied are among those that more contribute to the risk management.
When evaluating the cases separately, exist different management intensities between the projects number of processes; practices applied in each case. Thus, among the projects analyzed, the case 3 presented the highest intensity in the management of risks, as it was the only one that applied all the management processes set in the literature consulted and showed the highest frequency in the use of risk management practices. Then appears the case 5 5 processes; 6 practices , followed by cases 2 5; 5 , 4 2; 4 and 1 2; 3 , respectively.
When analyzing the PRO-1, was found that with the increase in the intensity of the risk management there has been a reduction in the presence of risk factors in projects. It was also found that the projects with greater intensity on risk management were also those with the best performances. However, risk management, by itself, is not sufficient to ensure the success of the projects. Other aspects should also be assessed, as the previous classification of the complexity of projects, aiming their appropriate management.
Risk Management in a Manufacturing Company
The graphical representation of the theoretical trends of PRO-1 is showed in Figure 2. It is observed in Figure 2 , that with increasing the intensity of risk management the presence of risk factors reduces and project performance improves, tending to accept the PRO It was also found that the efficiency of the projects is achieved A and B when the management intensity of risk factors is compatible with the style of management of complexity applied cases 3 and 4.
However, there are evidences denying that risk management is more intense in projects with higher levels of complexity, just by the cases 1 and 3 of intermediate complexity system that present the lowest 1 case and greater intensity in risk management case 3. Regarding to the presence of other factors, or decreased with increasing complexity not controllable forces , or were lower in the projects matrix contractual and legal, financial and economic , or were higher in the projects with less complexity, as the assembly and system operational, non-controllable forces, planning, contractual and legal as Table 6.
Another observation about the PRO-2 refers to the fact that the best performances were obtained by system projects cases 1 and 3 and not in the assembly case 4. This evidence strengthens the thesis that the risk factors to be administered, maximize the effectiveness of the methods of management risk and complexity which, in turn, minimize the impact of risk factors on the performance of projects example is the case 3.
In these terms, the classification of the degree of complexity has not demonstrated positive influence on the performance of the infrastructure projects, tend to reject the PRO In the context of the PRO-3, risk factors procrastination, safety and social, and not controllable forces were the only ones who showed consistency between the presence of risk factors and the impact on the performance of projects. Thus, note that in most cases the degree of presence of risk factors was not related to the performance impact.